RECORD
The Mass Distribution of Extrasolar Planet-Candidates and Spectroscopic-Binary Low-Mass Companions
Astrophysics · Submitted 13 May 1998
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim One possible interpretation of this result is that we have here two different populations.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
We consider the mass distribution of the nine unseen companions orbiting solar-type stars with minimum possible masses in the planetary mass range reported as of March 1998. We compare the mass distribution of these nine extrasolar planet candidates with the distribution of low-mass secondaries in spectroscopic binaries. We choose to use a logarithmic scale to study the combined mass distribution, because of the large range of masses, 0.5-300 Jupiter masses, involved. Although the results are based on a very small number of systems, the combined distribution looks different at the high- and low-ends. At the high-mass end the distribution drops steeply from 200 to 20 Jupiter masses. At the planetary range of masses the distribution is flat, and might even rise mildly from, say, 20 to 0.6 Jupiter masses, depending on the assumed detection threshold for the precise surveys. The transition region between the two slopes is at about 10-30 Jupiter masses. One possible interpretation of this result is that we have here two different populations. Maybe the lower-mass population was formed like planets, out of an accretion disc, while the high-mass population was formed like binary stars. If the shape of the combined distribution can be verified by many more detections, and if the planetary-mass objects prove to be extrasolar planets, this can give us the long-sought clue for how to distinguish planets from low-mass stellar companions.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | We consider the mass distribution of the nine unseen companions orbiting solar-type stars with minimum possible masses in the planetary mass range reported as of March 1998. | contribution 0.93 | 0.41 | 0.03 | asserted 0.67 |
| s1 | We compare the mass distribution of these nine extrasolar planet candidates with the distribution of low-mass secondaries in spectroscopic binaries. | contribution 0.58 | 0.76 | 0.03 | asserted 0.77 |
| s2 | We choose to use a logarithmic scale to study the combined mass distribution, because of the large range of masses, 0.5-300 Jupiter masses, involved. | method 1.00 | 0.78 | 0.02 | asserted 0.99 |
| s3 | Although the results are based on a very small number of systems, the combined distribution looks different at the high- and low-ends. | result 0.52 | 0.87 | 0.10 | asserted 0.84 |
| s4 | At the high-mass end the distribution drops steeply from 200 to 20 Jupiter masses. | result 1.00 | 0.85 | 0.11 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | At the planetary range of masses the distribution is flat, and might even rise mildly from, say, 20 to 0.6 Jupiter masses, depending on the assumed detection threshold for the precise surveys. | result 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.18 | speculative 0.51 |
| s6 | The transition region between the two slopes is at about 10-30 Jupiter masses. | result 1.00 | 0.88 | 0.15 | asserted 0.92 |
| s7 | One possible interpretation of this result is that we have here two different populations. | interpretation 1.00 | 0.31 | 0.29 | hedged possibility 0.97 |
| s8 | Maybe the lower-mass population was formed like planets, out of an accretion disc, while the high-mass population was formed like binary stars. | interpretation 1.00 | 0.09 | 0.14 | speculative 0.85 |
| s9 | If the shape of the combined distribution can be verified by many more detections, and if the planetary-mass objects prove to be extrasolar planets, this can give us the long-sought clue for how to distinguish planets from low-mass stellar companions. | interpretation 0.58 | 0.12 | 0.39 | hedged possibility 0.90 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
We consider the mass distribution of the nine unseen companions orbiting solar-type stars with minimum possible masses in the planetary mass range reported as of March 1998. We compare the mass distribution of these nine extrasolar planet candidates with the distribution of low-mass secondaries in spectroscopic binaries. We choose to use a logarithmic scale to study the combined mass distribution, because of the large range of masses, 0.5-300 Jupiter masses, involved. Although the results are based on a very small number of systems, the combined distribution looks different at the high- and low-ends. At the high-mass end the distribution drops steeply from 200 to 20 Jupiter masses. At the planetary range of masses the distribution is flat, and might even rise mildly from, say, 20 to 0.6 Jupiter masses, depending on the assumed detection threshold for the precise surveys. The transition region between the two slopes is at about 10-30 Jupiter masses. One possible interpretation of this result is that we have here two different populations. Maybe the lower-mass population was formed like planets, out of an accretion disc, while the high-mass population was formed like binary stars. If the shape of the combined distribution can be verified by many more detections, and if the planetary-mass objects prove to be extrasolar planets, this can give us the long-sought clue for how to distinguish planets from low-mass stellar companions.
Human review
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.